Hi Roger,
Does this break anything in the ideas behind a TAPIR network? It is not likely to lead to a bad multiplication of CNS files as there are only likely to be around 10 maximum for the ontology. What do you think?
I see no problems in having separate CNS files for each conceptual schema. It doesn't break anything - actually TAPIR capabilities responses can even advertise more than one CNS.
In principle the new CNS handler for TapirLink could just fetch the first conceptual schema from the file. Otherwise we would need to either change the interface or create parameters to the handler.
Maybe the main CNS file that we have now for DarwinCore and ABCD versions could also be separated into different files... (Markus?) Perhaps there could be other advantages in doing that.
Best Regards, -- Renato